Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the erection of new buildings to provide 40 serviced apartments (sui generis) together with hard and soft landscaping, basement car parking spaces and associated infrastructure and works.

 

The Planner referred to an extra representation detailed on the Amendment Sheet.

 

The Committee received two representations in objection to the application.

 

The first representation covered the following issues (owner of 62 Holbrook Road):

      i.         Expressed concerns about Blocks C1 and C2 and security risks to their property.

    ii.         Expressed concerns regarding damage to the mature hedges which provided screening.

   iii.         Block B would block the sun they naturally received at the moment, which would impact on their mental health and wellbeing.

  iv.         Asked for hedges to be protected.

 

The second representation covered the following issues:

        i.       Requested an assessment of scale against neighbouring properties which had not been done.

      ii.        Suggested the privacy analysis and shadow analysis were flawed as it did not take into consideration the difference in the level of the ground.

    iii.        Noted it was a residential area and that development for the Cambridge Biomedical Campus should be on the Cambridge Biomedical Campus.

 

Matt Hare (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee Manager read out the following points on behalf of Councillor S.Davies (Queen Edith’s Ward Councillor):

               i.     The officer’s report referred to Policy 77, Development and Expansion of Visitor Accommodation. Policy 77 stated that high quality accommodation would be supported “at Cambridge Biomedical Campus (including Addenbrooke’s hospital)”. In paragraph 8.5 of the Officer’s report, the officer suggested that 11 Queen Edith’s Way was close enough to the Campus to qualify for approval under Policy 77. 

             ii.     Policy 77 should not be considered in isolation from Policy 17, Cambridge Biomedical Campus Area of Major Change.  Policy 17 both explained the intention to include visitor accommodation on the Campus (para 3.45); and described the Campus boundaries (para 3.46). It was clearly the intention of Policy 77 that the Campus’ visitor accommodation needs should be met on the Campus site, that site being defined in paragraph 3.46. This being the case, the officer argued that Policy 17 effectively trumped Policy 77 in this instance, as the raison d’etre of this Queen Edith’s Way development was to provide visitor accommodation for the Campus, and Policy 17 detailed that the Campus should be meeting these needs on its own site.

            iii.     The interpretation was further supported by Policy S/CBC in the new Local Plan First Proposals. These rightly required the Biomedical Campus to utilise its own land efficiently to meet its needs and specifies:

           iv.     Given the existing piecemeal development on the Biomedical Campus, any proposed release must contribute towards improving the wellbeing of campus users and surrounding communities, as well as addressing the spill over impacts on individuals and communities of this intensive employment location.

             v.     The clear intention of this provision, to ensure that the Campus no longer pushed out its negative externalities into the surrounding residential neighbourhood, reinforces the primacy of Policy 17 over Policy 77 in relation to this application.

           vi.     It was this point which Officer Collins and Councillor S.Davies further discussed.  Understood that Policy 77 allowed for the development of visitor accommodation in sustainable locations outside the city centre. However, the sustainability of this location (11 Queen Edith’s Way) related solely to its proximity to the Biomedical Campus, as could be seen by:

·      the developer's proposal which stated that there was a current demand for 18,600 short stay nights a year for the visitors to Cambridge Biomedical Campus. The proposed development would provide 15,476 nights a year assuming an 80% occupancy level.

·      the Officer's report to Committee on 6th October which made a direct linkage between the failure to build the hotel on the Campus envisaged in Policy 17 and the viability of this project (see paragraph 8.12).

 

Given that:

a.    the viability of this project was based exclusively on demand for visitor accommodation generated by the Campus;

b.    Policy 17 of the 2018 Local Plan clearly intends that visitor accommodation for the Campus was built on its own site; and

c.    Policy S/CBC of the emerging Joint Local Plan specifically requires the curtailment of the spillover effects of the Campus on adjoining communities

          vii.     Asked colleagues on the Committee to give due weight to the intentions of Policy 17 and reject the application.

 

The Committee:

 

A vote was taken on the Officer recommendation, to grant planning permission for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the Officer including:

i.               a revised landscape condition regarding the retention of the hedge where possible with delegated authority for officers to draft the condition and

ii.             the correction of road names in the Officer report.

 

Resolved (unanimously) to reject the Officer recommendation to approve the application.

 

Officers drafted the following reasons for refusal reflecting the policy concerns expressed by Members for rejecting the Officer’s recommendation. Members were advised by Officers they ought not to include reason 3 because in the opinion of Officers’ reason 3 could not be sustained at appeal.

 

Resolved unanimously to agree the first reason for refusal:

1.    By virtue of the scale, massing, siting and design of the buildings, the proposal would result in a form of development that would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area, and fail to satisfactorily respond to its context. Consequently, the development would be contrary to Policies 55, 56, 57 and 59 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018.

 

Resolved unanimously to agree the second reason for refusal:

2.      The proposal, which seeks to construct 40 serviced apartments on the site with a low level of communal facilities, would result in an overly intense level of activity on the site and comings and goings, both from occupiers and associated service/delivery vehicles, that would harm the amenities of surrounding residents. Consequently, the development would be contrary to Policies 35 and 56 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018.

 

Contrary to Officer advice, resolved by 5 votes to 1 to agree and apply the third reason for refusal:

3.      By virtue of the number of proposed units, the small size of each of the units, and the limited internal and external communal facilities, the development would provide a poor level of accommodation and standard of amenity for future occupants. Consequently, the development would be contrary to Policy 56 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018.

 

Resolved (unanimously) to refuse the application contrary to the Officer recommendation for the following reasons:

1.      By virtue of the scale, massing, siting and design of the buildings, the proposal would result in a form of development that would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area, and fail to satisfactorily respond to its context. Consequently, the development would be contrary to Policies 55, 56, 57 and 59 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018.

2.      The proposal, which seeks to construct 40 serviced apartments on the site with a low level of communal facilities, would result in an overly intense level of activity on the site and comings and goings, both from occupiers and associated service/delivery vehicles, that would harm the amenities of surrounding residents. Consequently, the development would be contrary to Policies 35 and 56 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018.

3.      By virtue of the number of proposed units, the small size of each of the units, and the limited internal and external communal facilities, the development would provide a poor level of accommodation and standard of amenity for future occupants. Consequently, the development would be contrary to Policy 56 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018.